Winger v. Meade Dist. Hosp. — Dec. 2016 (Summary)

DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

Winger v. Meade Dist. Hosp.
Case No. 13-1428-JTM (D. Kan. Dec. 14, 2016)

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted a hospital’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether it had afforded adequate due process to a physician when it revoked the physician’s staff privileges; the court found that the termination of privileges did not deprive the physician of any property interest without due process.

After staff reported that a physician had provided substandard care to two patients on the same day, the hospital convened a meeting with its risk management committee, which determined that an external peer review entity should examine the physician’s care.  Following the external peer review entity’s determination, the physician was given a chance to formally respond to the external review and the charges of substandard care.  While the physician initially stated that he would respond to the external review, he instead opted to ask a fellow physician to provide an opinion and submitted that physician’s brief and “conclusory” letter – which included no details about the patients’ care – to the risk management committee.  Because the physician failed to respond directly to the findings of substandard care, the physician’s temporary privileges to practice at the hospital were terminated.  Rather than face termination, the physician resigned his appointment and his employment was terminated shortly thereafter.

The physician sued on a number of grounds, with the only claim remaining at this stage was that the hospital deprived him of his property interest in 60 days of continued employment without due process, including notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence, and an opportunity to respond.  The court disagreed, granting the hospital’s motion for summary judgment after finding that the physician knew of the charges against him and had been informed about his opportunity to formally respond sufficient to meet the standards for adequate due process.